FW: BOOST_CHECK vs. BOST_CHECK_EQUAL, checking equality of wchar_ts - Boost-users - lists.preview.boost.org

newer
g++ warning: comparing floating...

FW: BOOST_CHECK vs. BOST_CHECK_EQUAL, checking equality of wchar_ts

older
Problems Building Boost 1.33.1 on...

Tan Zhi

30 Jul 2006 30 Jul '06

3:05 a.m.

According to the document, BOOST_CHECK is the same as BOST_CHECK_EQUAL. However,I found an exception. Which is listed below, where m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1) returns a const wchar_t* type. Interestingly, the first two tests fail, while the last two pass. BOOST_CHECK(L"A" == m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1)); BOOST_CHECK(m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1) == L"A" ); BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(L"A", m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1)); BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1), L"A"); Can any one please help to explain it? Thanks

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Show replies by date

Gennadiy Rozental

30 Jul 30 Jul

9:11 a.m.

New subject: BOOST_CHECK vs. BOST_CHECK_EQUAL, checking equality of wchar_ts

"Tan Zhi" wrote in message news:44CC220C.8080405@gmail.com...

According to the document, BOOST_CHECK is the same as BOST_CHECK_EQUAL. However,I found an exception. Which is listed below, where m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1) returns a const wchar_t* type.

Interestingly, the first two tests fail, while the last two pass.

BOOST_CHECK(L"A" == m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1));

BOOST_CHECK(m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1) == L"A" );

This actually perform pointers comparizons and almost never produce true.

BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(L"A", m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1));

BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1), L"A");

Boost.Test includes special treatement to C strings comparisons. As a result actual value are compared not the pointers. That's another reason to prefer BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL to BOOST_CHECK. Gennadiy

Can any one please help to explain it? Thanks

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Felipe Magno de Almeida

5:16 p.m.

New subject: BOOST_CHECK vs. BOST_CHECK_EQUAL, checking equality of wchar_ts

On 7/30/06, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

[snipped]

...
Interestingly, the first two tests fail, while the last two pass.

BOOST_CHECK(L"A" == m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1));

BOOST_CHECK(m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1) == L"A" );

This actually perform pointers comparizons and almost never produce true.

I dont think you can actually be sure about this, since we can't know if SetLngGetString doesnt return a std::wstring or some other type that has implicit conversion from wchar_t. I believe more information is needed to know why the difference is occurring. Though it sure seems like a pointer comparision problem. [snipped]

Gennadiy

best regards, -- Felipe Magno de Almeida

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Gennadiy Rozental

31 Jul 31 Jul

1:22 a.m.

New subject: BOOST_CHECK vs. BOST_CHECK_EQUAL, checking equality of wchar_ts

"Felipe Magno de Almeida" wrote in message news:a2b17b60607301016y69e3ffdew3525f1449893e28d@mail.gmail.com...

On 7/30/06, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

...
[snipped]

...
...
Interestingly, the first two tests fail, while the last two pass.

BOOST_CHECK(L"A" == m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1));

BOOST_CHECK(m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1) == L"A" );

This actually perform pointers comparizons and almost never produce true.

I dont think you can actually be sure about this, since we can't know if SetLngGetString doesnt return a std::wstring or some other type that has implicit conversion from wchar_t.

Wouldn't you remove the rest of the original message, you would see that it does return wchar_t const*.

...
...
where m_mmf.SetLngGetString(1033, 1) returns a const wchar_t* type.

Gennaadiy

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

Felipe Magno de Almeida

3:21 a.m.

New subject: BOOST_CHECK vs. BOST_CHECK_EQUAL, checking equality of wchar_ts

On 7/30/06, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

[snipped]

Wouldn't you remove the rest of the original message, you would see that it does return wchar_t const*.

Oops! Sorry!

Gennaadiy

-- Felipe Magno de Almeida

Reply

Sign in to reply online Use email software

6799

Age (days ago)

6800

Last active (days ago)

Download

4 comments

3 participants

tags

participants (3)

Felipe Magno de Almeida
Gennadiy Rozental
Tan Zhi